Friday, February 23, 2007

The Price of Free Speech

Note: This piece appeared in C-Ville Weekly in 2001. It was later edited for SLANT's pages in 2004. In its way, it speaks to the mindset of mischievous bloggers who believe it’s patriotic to force-feed a grotesque image -- a beheading -- onto the eyes of readers who would choose not be exposed to such material.
The Price of Free Speech
by F. T. Rea

Given that in Richmond the proper meaning of the words and deeds of Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) is still hotly debated, the stately Lee Monument has been a lightning rod of sorts over the years, as well as a tourist attraction. On a pretty morning five or six summers ago a curious commotion was underway about the statue's pedestal. About 25 adults were milling about purposely; some were propping large posters against the monument itself. Upon closer examination the posters proved to be pro-life propaganda. It was the same sort of designed-to-disgust material displayed relentlessly by demonstrators outside the Women's Clinic on the Boulevard for years.

So, why would anti-abortion activists be rallying in the shadow of a piece of heroic sculpture that fondly remembers a Confederate general mounted on his horse? Baffled, this scribbler's curiosity got the best of him.

To get a better look, I continued walking toward the proceedings. In response to my inquiry it was explained they were there to picket an “abortionist” with an office in the medical office building, just across the street. Well, OK... Then, with that mission accomplished, the group had opted to take some keepsake photographs, using the oldest of Monument Avenue's statues -- it was dedicated in 1890 -- as a backdrop.

Standing next to identical placards displaying a blown-up depiction of a bloody fetus -- at first it looked like an undercooked hamburger that had fallen off the grill -- they posed with easy smiles; it could have been a company picnic or a class reunion.

On a one-to-ten scale, in the Absurd Postmodern Juxtapositions category, this business was easily a nine. Old General Lee -- whose view on abortion is not widely known -- he did not flinch.

A year or two before this morning a group of a similar ilk had set itself up on the grassy, tree-lined median strip, a half-block to the east. On this occasion they were there to use the funeral of Associate Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church to suit their purpose. Along with a large contingent of the working press and dozens of uniformed police officers, they waited for the funeral underway to end.

Inside the church Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the eulogy, “...[Powell] was the very embodiment of judicial temperament; receptive to the ideas of his colleagues, fair to the parties to the case, but ultimately relying on his own seasoned judgment.”

Outside the church the eager TV crews had their cameras and microphones at the ready. The patient cops had their night sticks and side arms close at hand. The lathered up news-makers brandished their oozing fetus signs and posters citing Powell as a “murderer.”

When Powell’s family, friends and Supreme Court colleagues came outside, following the service, they had no choice but to notice the demonstration before them. Lenses zoomed in to focus on their stunned reactions.

As a longtime admirer of Lewis Powell, when I saw that one of the ranting pro-lifers was wearing a clerical collar, my curiosity got the best of me then, too. So I walked over to ask him something like -- was he really a man of the cloth, or was it just a shirt?

Taking umbrage, he fired back at me something about Powell having killed millions of babies. I had to assume he was referring to Powell’s role in the famous Roe vs. Wade decision. Asked what that had to do with forcing the dead judge’s family look at his gross placard, the sweaty zealot huffed and puffed. Instead of answering the question he repeated the same blustery charge against Powell.

There you have it -- free speech isn’t always pretty. In practice, the first amendment means we all have to take turns putting up with people who seem twisted, even mean, to us.

It’s difficult to imagine the demonstrators at Powell’s funeral changed any minds on the abortion issue by creating such a disturbing sight in the middle of the street. No, I’d say they were chiefly interested in venting their collective spleen and dealing out some payback. They weren’t there to persuade. They were there to punish and strike fear in the hearts of anyone who dares to rub them the wrong way.

Still, in our optimistic and open society, we are supposed to be obliged to allow for such venting. Let’s not forget that popular speech has never needed much protection at any time in history.

OK, that’s the price of free speech. Pose however you like next to the statue of old General Lee, astride Traveler. Wear funny costumes and bring props, if you like. As long as you don’t want to stand in my yard, to push your twisted ideas -- if you are out in the public way -- go for it. Short of what might constitute an assault, it’s your right.

Lee won’t flinch, even if I do.

-- 30 --

Photo Credit: F. T. Rea (2005)


JohnMaxfield said...

If you believe in free speech so much, then why did you silence SpankThatDonkey? He's a good guy. Unless you just can't stand dissenting opinions...?

Triscula said...

Wow! I had no idea that F.T. Rea had the power to silence anyone. Oh wait...he doesn't. Spanky's blog is still up and running. So much for that bogus accusation.

JohnMaxfield said...

Wasn't he banned from commenting on this site? That was what I was questioning...

F.T. Rea said...


Spankthatdonkey has probably written a hundred comments, or more, to posts here at SLANTblog. As I remember it, for a long time they were usually lame -- warmed over Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter -- but not deliberately obnoxious. In the last couple of months the tone changed. Since the campaign he’s been at the heart of, to pick a fight with Waldo Jaquith, his comments have become more confrontational, even disturbing.

After a while it became obvious that his game was to get me to run him off, so he could cry “foul.”

Put together with some of the more bizarre aspects of the Waldo-bashing campaign, the pattern began to bother me. After several warnings to knock it off, I finally pulled the plug on Spanky here at SLANTblog.

Of course, whether he is allowed to post comments here has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That’s the reddest herring in in the fish market of ideas. As a blogger he has no constitutional right to force his warped notions about politics, nor his self-promoting schemes, on the readers of SLANTblog. Just as he has no right to force a newspaper to print his letter to the editor.

Please read the next-to-last paragraph of my piece again. Note the phrase “As long as you don’t want to stand in my yard...”

SLANTblog is my yard.

JohnMaxfield said...

So I guess he's the dogpile in your yard...?

F.T. Rea said...


Tortured metaphors aside, SLANTblog is a space that is edited and published by the writer of these words, who takes responsibility for what is presented here; I'm not hiding my identity.

And, I'm not at all interested in playing a game with your blogging gang, to generate hits on anybody’s counter.

Look here, I’m an old freelance artist/writer, who barely gets by. Not a kid looking to get attention by playing the bad boy. You aren’t going to get any points by bugging me.